“We do not condone the use of our trademark-protected name and logo by any organization,” Globe spokesman Bob Powers is quoted as telling Annear.

Surely, though, the Globe’s lawyers know the Occupy Boston folks are within their legal rights. The Globe’s trademark prevents a would-be competitor from coming in and starting a newspaper called the Boston Globe. By contrast, the name “Occupy Boston Globe” is a parody of and a commentary on the Globe and on the media in general, expression that is protected by the First Amendment. A major consideration in trademark cases is whether readers might confuse the parody with the original. There doesn’t seem to be much chance of that.

Post navigation

8 thoughts on “Globe warns Occupy Boston on trademark”

Is this one of those things you just have to do to show you’re going to defend your trademark, even though you know you’re going to lose?

I wonder if Matthew Carter (a Cantabrigian who designed the logo) is among the Occupiers? It might be a bit strenuous for him to be there in person, but I wonder where his sympathies lie. (Just a curiosity… I realize his stances are of no legal standing in the matter.)

@Stephen: That’s a good question, and the thought had occurred to me. Many years ago, the Columbia Journalism Review published an article about all those trademark letters newspapers receive (“Be sure to say Jello®!”). Turned out the companies couldn’t have cared less, but that they had to establish a paper trail in case proving they had taken steps to defend their trademark in case a real competitor came along and tried to argue that the name had become generic. On the other hand, as far as I know there hasn’t been a peep out of the Wall Street Journal about the Occupied WSJ.

Obviously nobody would confuse the two, but it doesn’t look to me like it’s a parody or a commentary on the Globe that would fall under fair use. The content is all about Occupy Boston; they’re just using the Globe’s logo.